"The obsession with production, coupled with a surprising shoddiness in composition, permeates the entire album. There is nothing beautiful... an album of special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent."

-The New York Times, June 18, 1967

"Music may never be the same again."

-The Washington Post, June 18, 1967

These quotes are from two reviews of the same album that ran on the same day in two of the most venerable newspapers in the United States, almost exactly 46 years ago. The album in question was the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Suffice it to say, only one of these reviews was right.

In hindsight it's easy to chuckle at the Times, and many have. But that pan attests to what a shocking work Sgt. Pepper was; its author, Richard Goldstein, was one of the best and most important rock critics of his generation. When faced with something as audaciously new as Sgt. Pepper and forced to offer an opinion (on deadline) you either buy in or you don't. Most people bought into Sgt. Pepper, partly because, well, it was Sgt. Pepper, but also because by 1967 everyone knew the Beatles enough to trust what they were doing, even if a lot of them still didn't really understand it (even the glowing reviews of Sgt. Pepper often made pretty weird claims for it). Goldstein took a risk and lost, but doing so took fearlessness, and fearlessness was what made him a great critic.

I've spent a lot of the last week thinking about music without precedent, and people without fear. Last Friday saw the sudden debut of Kanye West's blastoff into aesthetic insanity, Yeezus, which leaked five days before its official release date. Yeezus isn't Sgt. Pepper (he declared, hesitantly), but it's a legitimately avant-garde pop record by a truly major artist, a hard, punishing work that seems to defy its own context and thrust us into the key of the epochal ("Music may never be the same again"). The New Yorker's Sasha Frere-Jones suggests that in a few decades Yeezus may be remembered as the album that got a brand new generation of kids into Kanye West, a vision of the future that strikes me as faintly apocalyptic, though I'm probably just getting old.

To say that Yeezus is the most-anticipated album of 2013 is a statement so obvious it's barely worth making; to say that it's the most significant, maybe even the best, is starting to feel close to the same. But what else to say? One of the most fascinating aspects of Yeezus' arrival is the discursive crisis it's caused, produced by a fast-react culture colliding with a work of art so confounding. On first listen Yeezus felt like a willing act of musical and commercial suicide, only to be foiled by its maker's pesky pop genius. Fans live-blogged their own befuddlement on Twitter and Facebook, venturing cautious endorsements, or variations on the opening line of this. On Saturday SPIN posted a feature in which nine editors and contributors gave "impulsive reviews" of Yeezus within hours of hearing it, a daring exercise pulled off pretty impressively by all involved (the album averaged an 8.4/10).

It's a pretty short list of truly major artists--artists indisputably at the top of their respective domains, both fame-wise and acclaim-wise--who've thrown curveballs this pronounced. The Beatles did it repeatedly. Miles Davis changed the language of jazz with Kind of Blue, and this piece of paper still sends chills. Bob Dylan went electric, you may have heard about it. Stevie Wonder did it once, almost quietly. One could make a case for Prince, but Prince's weirdness was so engrained in his game that curveballs were pretty much all he threw. Radiohead's Kid A was probably the last major release to provoke similar WTF-ness. But Radiohead in 2000 weren't the ubiquitous poly-celeb narcissists that West is (he'd take that as a compliment), a distinction that matters when said album contains the levels of self-deconstruction that Yeezus does.

"There's a Riot Goin' On" seemed alienating, but it shot to the top of the Billboard charts: Sly's resignation letter to the world was summarily rejected by his fans.

I keep coming back to Sly Stone, who in 1971 blew the lid off a persona previously marked by optimism and utopianism with There's A Riot Goin' On, one of the best and most disturbed albums ever released by a major pop star. Riot was a moebius strip of coked-out despair that was also a musical revelation, one whose aftershocks would be felt throughout the 1970s (among other things, it boasted some of the earliest mainstream uses of a drum machine). "Family Affair," the lead single, dripped with exhausted melancholy and seemed to scoff at the group's entire ethos. Its first side ended with "There's a Riot Goin' On," a title track that clocked in at 0:00; the second side ended with "Thank You For Talkin' To Me Africa," a slowed-down, wheezing remake of "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)," the hit single from the previous year that had featured an entire verse of Sly savagely mocking his own material. All this might sound ridiculously alienating, but both "Family Affair" and Riot shot to the top of the Billboard charts: Sly's resignation letter to the world was summarily rejected by his fans. But the drugs had the last word, and after releasing one more great album, 1973's Fresh, the genius left the building.

I'm not comparing Yeezus to Riot, nor do I wish to, because the story won't end the same way. But it's the only precedent I can think of in which an artist wed such a dazzling work of aesthetic newness to a persona that seems so profoundly uncomfortable with itself, so insistent that we be uncomfortable alongside it. Patti Smith once famously remarked that "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine," and at times I've felt the same about Yeezus; I want this dude to climb down off his cross and keep making the best music of his generation, because the cross is boring (if not worse) and the music is anything but.

Yeezus is a difficult record, difficult to talk about, difficult to listen to, difficult to unreservedly love in the way that many of us unreservedly loved The College Dropout (man, are those days over). But when I first heard it last Friday I felt convinced it would crash on the mainstream with a confused thud, the only possible outcome when the world's biggest pop star looks upon his public and instructs them to gather up everything they hold dear and familiar and go fuck themselves. Then, not three days later, I watched the trailer for Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street, and heard "Black Skinhead" playing in the background like it was the most natural thing in the world, so natural that at first I barely noticed. And then I remembered that Kanye West is as good as he always says he is, and I'd never felt so much sympathy for Richard Goldstein, 46 years ago.

About the Author

Jack Hamilton has written for Slate, NPR, and Los Angeles Review of Books. This fall, he will be a postdoctoral researcher at the Laboratory for Race and Popular Culture at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Most Popular

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

Members of Colombia's younger generation say they “will not torture for tradition.”

MEDELLÍN, Colombia—On a scorching Saturday in February, hundreds of young men and women in Medellín stripped down to their swimsuit bottoms, slathered themselves in black and red paint, and sprawled out on the hot cement in Los Deseos Park in the north of the city. From my vantage point on the roof of a nearby building, the crowd of seminude protesters formed the shape of a bleeding bull—a vivid statement against the centuries-old culture of bullfighting in Colombia.

It wasn’t long ago that Colombia was among the world’s most important countries for bullfighting, due to the quality of its bulls and its large number of matadors. In his 1989 book Colombia: Tierra de Toros (“Colombia: Land of Bulls”), Alberto Lopera chronicled the maturation of the sport that Spanish conquistadors had introduced to South America in the 16th century, from its days as an unorganized brouhaha of bulls and booze in colonial plazas to a more traditional Spanish-style spectacle whose fans filled bullfighting rings across the country.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.